Pan F & Rodinol...no thanks
Old 01-23-2018   #1
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 58
Pan F & Rodinol...no thanks

My goodness the net is full of how great Rodinol is, I just shot 2 rolls of Pan F 35mm and developed at 1.50, the first roll I under cooked as I cut back on agitation but didn't let it stew long enough. All the images are there, second roll as per massive dev and fine.
What both rolls have is grain so large it defeats the point of using Pan F, FP4 in Ilfosol is way better, smaller grain and better gradation.
I'm glad I only bought a small bottle.
Scanned on Coolscan 8000 and i know the differenve between scanner noise and film grain.

I can't for the life of me see why Rodinol gets so much good press if it makes Pan F look more like HP5!
__________________
Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #2
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 407
I think it's called RodinAl.

And it's usually not very good for Pan F, giving excessive contrast and lost shadow detail.

Google around before you decide is my advice.
Some information I dug up from google regarding this combination

https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...rodinal.72241/

https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...rodinal.23605/

https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...odinal.207703/

RodinAl is known for enhancing grain and may not work well with all films.
Other films comes out very beautiful with it (Foma 100, Acros etc).
But use google and find examples and discussions before you potentially ruin important images
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #3
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 58
I did a bit of googling (they can't touch you for it) and I kept getting Rodders at 1.50, 1.100 and more as a dev to control Pan F highlights, so I thought I would give it a chance. I've got lack lustre negs with huge grain.Not for me this, FP4 in Ilfosol does better for me.
Next roll of Pan F I'll have a go with DD-X. Once I've found something that works I tend to stick with it.
Anyone know the shelf life of a bottle of DD X once opened, then topped up with marbles etc. I had hoped to find something that doesnt go off like Ilfosol, i'm always dumping half used bottles.

My go to is medium format FP4 in Ilfosol 3, I thought lets give 35mm a try faster lenses and increase in depth of field 50iso should be usable, I just need a quality dev/film combination.
__________________
Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #4
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
I tried Rodinal with Pan F years ago, and although I love Rodinal for certain films, it was awful with Pan F. I'll never do that again.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #5
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
I tried Rodinal with Pan F years ago, and although I love Rodinal for certain films, it was awful with Pan F. I'll never do that again.

Best,
-Tim
Ditto. "Awful" sums it up in one word. Seems like it would work was my thought process before I tried it.

Pan F is very nice in Perceptol, however. IMO. Pretty much the polar opposite of the results you'd get with Rodinal, which is obviously good for some things, but not this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #6
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
You're not going to learn much about any film with two rolls. I get gorgeous results with fine grain and a full scale of tones including nice shadow detail and I'm using Rodinal.

Recommended ISO and development times and dilutions are only starting points. You need to buy 10 rolls and start testing for your own ISO and your correct development time. Everyone's technique for processing is different and people have different expectations of what they want plus how critical you are is most likely different than how critical I am.

Are you scanning or wet printing? Films are designed to wet print not scan and the results will be different. I wet print using an Ilford multigrade diffusion head. My system will give different results than a condenser enlarger and most certainly than a scanner.

If you're scanning what kind? My Imacon 848 will give different looking scans than a plustek or Epson. Using canned profiles or custom or scanning linear?

Get the idea? To get good results it's an individual thing where you need to start with recommendations and refine the exposture and process for you. My technique won't necessarily guarantee good results for you.

Two rolls won't tell you much other than you didn't do things right.

For my taste, I'm not a huge fan of FP4 although Ive tuned it in and get good results but like other films better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #7
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
Rodinal and PanF may not work for you but that doesn't mean it's not a really good combination if you take the time to learn how to expose and process it. It's the same as FP4 and HC110B for me but I took the time to learn both. No one film or developer or combination of the two are perfect.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #8
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,771
If you're scanning on an 8000 you should know by now that the scanner is noisy as hell. I scanned some apx25 and had a similar experience. However when wet printing noticed no issues with grain. Your issue isn't with the film Dev combo but it's the scanner.

I found the best film for smoothness on the Nikon were t grained films. Classic grained stuff always looked overly noisy or grainy.

I particularly liked tmax 400 in xtol with my Nikon.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #9
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 58
I thought I addressed that issue regarding scanner noise. Plus as I'm comparing it with other scans on the same scanner I can see the difference. I don't think the scanner was saving the noise just for Pan F.
Also in regards to the scanner, I had for sometime a Screen drum scanner the size of a an upright piano. It would produce wonderful scans, but wet mounting was a nightmare and slow to get right, the scanner was also slow. All in all I decided the Nikon scans were good enough for most things and certainly on quality for effort and time needed was better suited to a photographers needs. Im not looking at scanner noise, its film grain. I'm happy that many get what they want out of this combination, but its not for me, so far off the mark from what I want I don't see the point in spending the time finre tuning. I'l give Ilfords dev a try, I will do one roll as recommended then another over exposing undeveloping if roll one looks promising. The Rodinol killed the reason for using Pan F in the first place for me.
Cheers
Kev.
__________________
Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #10
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,771
I've been told that the nikon even at 4000 dpi can't resolve grain. So I've never expected my 8000 to do it.

If Chris Crawford pops by this thread he's a wonderful source of knowledge on the Coolscan 8000.

Comparing scans from my V700 that I had before it there was a noticeable increase in noise when going from the V700 to the 8000.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #11
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,522
I haven't shot film in almost 10 years but when I did I loved PanF. I also used Rodinal at the time so the comments kinda bewildered me.

I went back and looked at my notes from that time and found my procedure was to shoot the film at an exposure index (ISO) of 32 and process in Rodinal diluted 1:75 with a sodium sulfite mixture for 11.5 minutes at 70 degrees F (NOT 68 degrees as is usually recommended). The negatives were slightly thin but printed beautifully on a #3 contrast grade paper using a condenser enlarger.

The sodium sulfite mixture does not need to be precise I made it by diluting 2/3 Tablespoon of sulfite in 8 oz. of water for each roll to be processed.

Given that film and chemistry changes over time, you might use this as a starting point.

I also had good results using D76 1:1, 7.5 minutes at 70 degrees using ISO 50.

PanF was not a grainless film but it had gorgeous gray tones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #12
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeyedear View Post
Scanned on Coolscan 8000 and i know the differenve between scanner noise and film grain.
Have you cleaned the mirror on your Coolscan 8000 scanner? Yours has to be at lease ten years old by now. Unless it has been kept in a sealed container all these years, you probably have pretty much fine dust on that mirror. I noticed a difference when I cleaned the mirror on my Coolscan 9000. Just something to take into account.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #13
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeyedear View Post
The Rodinol ...
Rodinol? I'm not familiar with this developer.

I'm using Rodinal.
Rodinal and Pan F are two components which require trials and learning. Each and separate.
Rodinal is old developer with its limitations and Pan F is very tricky film.

I'm using Rodinal mostly for quick and cheap in cost developing of technical tests or if I wan't it gritty.

It took me almost entire bulk roll of Pan F to get it right and with HC-110, which is superior to Rodinal. IMO.

But I'm not sure about Rodinol.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #14
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,574
Ahh the joys of crappinol. Don't waste time with that junk. The only reason to use it is if you want golf ball sized grain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #15
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,974
I had considered using Pan F 50, but between this thread and the earlier one about how quickly the exposed (but undeveloped) image disappears on this film, I am pretty much scared off from using it.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #16
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Ahh the joys of crappinol. Don't waste time with that junk. The only reason to use it is if you want golf ball sized grain
Scanning or printing? IMO scanning sure, wet printing not so much.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #17
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,822
I've used Rodinal and it does bigger grain than I like, BUT there also many characteristics in which it excels. I've never used it with Pan F, but recently I used it with Technical Pan (Kodak). I thought about grain but because I only have a few rolls I didn't feel like buying a new developer. I was surprised how little grain showed. Maybe it was the emulsion. The point is some films work with Rodinal and some don't: taste is a big factor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #18
dickgillberg
Registered User
 
dickgillberg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6
Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
I had considered using Pan F 50, but between this thread and the earlier one about how quickly the exposed (but undeveloped) image disappears on this film, I am pretty much scared off from using it.
I recommend Kentmere 100 @50 ISO or at speed box with contrast filter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #20
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickgillberg View Post
Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.
FP4+ In Rodinal is my favorite for scanning. As mentioned earlier, wet printing tmax 400 in rodinal is my favorite. Though I'm trying some HP5 now to see if I can get away with bulk rolling.

I never liked HP5 very much but now that I'm printing everything I might like it again so I'm retrying it.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #21
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,771
Looking for some obligatory samples. Stumbled across this. OP maybe your Pan F is too fast. Here's some Kodalith at iso 6 in Rodinal.

__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #22
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,052
I like Pan-F in Rodinal. It is grainier than Pan-F in D-76, but it is not bad, and the tonality is gorgeous.


Pan-F in Rodinal



Pan-F in Rodinal


Rodinal has always been one of my favorite developers. I even use it for films like Tri-X with beautiful results. Tri-X in Rodinal has a gritty look, but with nice tonality and sharpness.


Tri-X in Rodinal


Tmax 400 is nice in Rodinal, too.


Tmax 400 in Rodinal



Tmax 400 in Rodinal

I develop in Rodinal 1+50; its my favorite dilution, and seems to give the nicest tonality.

Tmax 100, Ilford FP-4, and Fuji Acros 100 are beautiful in Rodinal too.

Here are my Rodinal Developing Times
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #23
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,975
This is interesting. I have a very old 100ft. bulk roll of Pan F, plus a partial bulk roll in a Aden loader. Both expired July/2006 and the only developer I have on hand is HC-110.
Loading a couple of short loads and developing in HC-110 (1:60 @ 70F @ 11 min. agitation every 3 min. as a one shot) leads me to believe the ISO of my expired film is now about 20. I like HC-110 because of the keeping qualities of the syrup and would like to be able to use it with the expired Pan F.
This film has been refrigerator stored for the last 10-12 years. And yes, I know the latent image fades, thus the short loads and develop within a couple of weeks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #24
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 58
Many years ago a Kodak rep told me, as long as film isn't left to get extremly hot, if it is kept in it's sealed packet (MF) thats more important than keeping it in the fridge or freezer and it would last well past the sell by date.
__________________
Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #25
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,466
I wanted to try Pan-F for some time now. And if I didn't read this thread I would surely go for Rodinal since I'm very pleased with how it develops Ferrania P30 (@ISO50):


(full res here, scanned with Minolta 5400 which can really show grain if you don't use the "grain dissolver" option at scanning (didn't use it with this scan))
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #26
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeyedear View Post
Many years ago a Kodak rep told me, as long as film isn't left to get extremly hot, if it is kept in it's sealed packet (MF) thats more important than keeping it in the fridge or freezer and it would last well past the sell by date.
Slightly OT....I believe that Kodak rep.
Have had film frozen for 10,12,15 years and still have box speeds achieved without fogging.
The thing is, unless it's not getting speed or has become fogged, one does not know what you might be missing from old film vs fresh unless you expose/develop both in the exact same circumstance.
So far, I've mostly been very successful/lucky with my film storage regimen.
Big old deep freeze with thick steel walls probably have helped keep radiation from fogging film while keeping the emulation "fresh".
It's sealed up tight in it's foil until it's ready to load.
Foma and others use actual paper backed foil while Ilford uses Mylar. I wonder if there is much difference?

OK back on topic
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #27
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,686
Count me among those who've had poor luck with Pan-F and Rodinall (note the spelling?). Usually Rodin-all is my go-to developer for nearly any film to get adequate results. Not with Pan-F. I've had a bit better luck with HC-110 (very dilute).

I have yet to try diafine with any film. I think I'll give that 2-bath stuff a try....with Pan-F. Good idea or terrible?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #28
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,555
I like using Rodinal as I find, with stand development, it works especially well with low speed films like Pan F Plus.

For me, temp. is not as critical as compared to developers like D-76 or Mic-X as these have shorter developing times compared to stand with Rodinal.

As an added bonus it’s cheap.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #29
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
Scanning or printing? IMO scanning sure, wet printing not so much.
Scanning. I haven't wet printed in almost 15 years
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #30
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
Count me among those who've had poor luck with Pan-F and Rodinall (note the spelling?). Usually Rodin-all is my go-to developer for nearly any film to get adequate results. Not with Pan-F. I've had a bit better luck with HC-110 (very dilute).

I have yet to try diafine with any film. I think I'll give that 2-bath stuff a try....with Pan-F. Good idea or terrible?
PanF is awesome with Diafine. I've found that ilford films don't play as nice with it as the others. PanF though is really nice
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #31
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
How many of you that don't like it have spent any time trying to dial it in. With Ordinal it's really EI 32 to 25 and recommended development needs to be worked out for your agitation and system, enlarger or scanner. Like I said I wet print and there's nothing grainy about it. Even examining the negs through a loupe it's not grainy. Ordinal produces a sharp edged grain but it's pretty fine with PanF. If you want fine grain try Freestyle Mic-x and rate it at 20-25.

Do some testing and work out a scheme to get the best out of your film. I's a beautiful film with amazing tonality if done right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #32
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
You're not going to learn much about any film with two rolls. I get gorgeous results with fine grain and a full scale of tones including nice shadow detail and I'm using Rodinal.

Recommended ISO and development times and dilutions are only starting points. You need to buy 10 rolls and start testing for your own ISO and your correct development time. Everyone's technique for processing is different and people have different expectations of what they want plus how critical you are is most likely different than how critical I am.

Are you scanning or wet printing? Films are designed to wet print not scan and the results will be different. I wet print using an Ilford multigrade diffusion head. My system will give different results than a condenser enlarger and most certainly than a scanner.

If you're scanning what kind? My Imacon 848 will give different looking scans than a plustek or Epson. Using canned profiles or custom or scanning linear?

Get the idea? To get good results it's an individual thing where you need to start with recommendations and refine the exposture and process for you. My technique won't necessarily guarantee good results for you.

Two rolls won't tell you much other than you didn't do things right.

For my taste, I'm not a huge fan of FP4 although Ive tuned it in and get good results but like other films better.

I agree with this. I haven't developed any Pan F for a long time but do remember that I liked it in Rodinal once I tuned my procedure which certainly took more than a couple of rolls.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #33
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,257
Maybe try a stronger mix ratio OP.
Rodinal at 1:25 is a different beast from 1:50.
I'm not a super Rodinal expert but, I have alway found a combination that produced a result I had a use for.
Maybe PanF is better with other developers for your purpose and scanning.
If I want less grain, I generally choose Tmax Dev 1:4.
In my workflow I use only two developers. Rodinal and Tmax dev.
The rodinal for sharpness and moodiness. Tmax dev for a cleaner more modren look or for pushing films.
The few times I've used PanF it was souped in Tmax 1:4 and had that fine sharp PanF look I imagine the OP was seeking.
I don't have the Darkroom Chops that Don and some others do but I can say with confidence, Rodinal gives predictable results at whatever given ratios.
It just takes a few goes to understand where a combinations limits lie.
1:50 is not where I would start for finer grain with a slowish film like PanF.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #34
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,617
Well, as one of those who tried PanF 50 in Rodinal and pointedly didn't like it, I thought I would weigh in again as there has been the subtle implication here that I and others who don't like the combination just must not know how to process film. (i.e. "Ur doin' it wrong.") Okay, granted, that's always a possibility, though, having spent a good deal,of time considering that possibility, I am tending to go with 'I think I know more or less what I'm doing, I just didn't personally like the combination of Pan F 50+ and Rodinal, no matter how I rated the film, or which dilution or processing regimen I used.'
The combination just never gave me what I was looking for from Pan F, which was fairly specific. Nothing I have seen here has made me change my mind. One man's "gorgeous tonality" is another man's "not really what I was looking for from PanF," perhaps that's possible. As someone else mentioned, taste probably plays a role in deciding whether PanF and Rodinal is one's preferred combo or not, as much as right or wrong does.
I have a fair amount of Tmax 3200 ferreted away so it's not that I have anything against grain in certain situations, and I happily use Rodinal with other slow speed films, so it's not that I don't think Rodinal is a good developer. I just don't like the results from the combination as much as some people here obviously do, much preferring results with Perceptol or even DD-X, for this particular film. Tried Rodinal + PanF enough, not going back.
This thread reminds me of a mom saying, "You're going to eat it. You're going to eat it, and you're going to like it!"
I've eaten a lot of it, cooked every whichaway. I don't like it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #35
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,318
Rodinal was my preferred developer for PanF, but ultimately it was too nitpicky of a film to bother. Also I had continuous issues with tiny spots all over the negative - in discussing with others, this may be an issue with the paper backing and humidity, which is just a fact of life when living in the deep south, so I don't bother. I didn't find it any higher resolution or lower grain than T-Max 100 in a good developer.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I normally did semi-stand developer in dilute Rodinal (1:100). Here's one of my better negs (6x17):

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #36
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickgillberg View Post
Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.
Try Fuji [email protected] to 100, Rodinal 1:50, or 1:25 for smoother results
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #37
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 374
I agree with x-ray, I've had great results with Rodinal and Pan F 50. It's not all bad news. It was the first film I ever developed when I began with film photography. Practice, practice, practice!!! I disagree that you cannot get good results with Rodinal and Pan F. I got results in my first try! Refining your skills is part of the fun!


My first film development. I have finally gone to the "dark side".
Ilford Pan F+ 50, Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar at 5.6. Development with Rodinal S, 9mins @ 22 C'. 60, 10 and 10 secs agitation.


Olympus OM1n, Zuiko 50/1.8 MC @ f4. Ilford Pan F 50 and scanned with an Epson 3170. Adjusted with Photoshop. Natural light and shadows on the banks of the Murray River, Renmark. Exposure taken around 5pm on a sunny day. I took advantage of the shadows from the gum tree behind the Pelican.


Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar, Ilford Pan F 50, wide open, Adonal 1/100 Stand Developement for 60 mins
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #38
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by znapper View Post
Try Fuji [email protected] to 100, Rodinal 1:50, or 1:25 for smoother results
I like Acros 100 and have gotten good results, but was surprised when I watched a video about Acros and the narrator said with Rodinal 1:50 there would be "more grain than a wheat field", which wasn't my experience at all. Must be VERY sensitive to different agitations, I am thinking?
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #39
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 58
I've got 5 rolls of Pan F left, dd x is next on the list, if it looks like it can give gradation and fine grain I'll work with that to dial it in. Rodinal or Rodinol or Anilrod or however you want to spell it is off the list.
Cheers all.

Kev.
__________________
Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #40
Shab
Registered User
 
Shab's Avatar
 
Shab is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Basque Country
Posts: 536
I have tried the pan F+ with HC110 at 1:79 dilution. here you have some examples:









All with M5 and 35mm Ultron VM.
__________________
My web
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:33.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.